Manage your subscription

Pressure grows for US to act on global warming

2 June 1990

By ROGER MILNE and CHRISTOPHER JOYCE

SCIENTISTS last week stepped up pressure on the American administration
to accept that major climatic changes are being caused by global warming,
with the publication of the first of the key reports from the Intergovernmental
Panel for Climate Change.

According to the 300-page report from the first IPCC working group,
which has been considering the scientific evidence for climate change, the
natural greenhouse effect, which keeps the Earth warmer than it would otherwise
be, is being enhanced by pollution caused by human activities.

The report concludes that emissions of long-lived greenhouse gases (carbon
dioxide, oxides of nitrogen and chlorofluorocarbons) will need to be reduced
by 60 per cent to stabilise concentrations at today’s levels; the shorter-lived
gas methane would need a 15 to 20 per cent reduction.

‘The longer emissions continue to increase at present-day rates, the
greater reductions would have to be for concentrations to stabilise at a
given level,’ warns the working group, which drew on the expertise of over
300 scientists from 40 countries.

Advertisement

‘Continued emissions of gases at present rates would commit us to increased
concentrations for decades to centuries,’ says the report. On the basis
of ‘business as usual’, with no cuts in emissions, the global mean temperature
will go up by 3 Degree C before the end of the next century. The mean rise
in sea level will be 20 centimetres by 2030, and 65 centimetres by 2100.
‘There will be significant regional variations,’ says the working group,
chaired by John Houghton, chief executive of the British Meteorological
Office.

Five hours before the IPCC group unveiled its findings, Britain’s Prime
Minister, Margaret Thatcher, committed Britain for the first time to a specific
reduction in carbon dioxide emissions over a set time. ‘Providing others
are ready to take their full share, Britain is prepared to set itself the
very demanding target of a reduction of up to 30 per cent in presently projected
levels of carbon dioxide emissions by the year 2005,’ she said. How this
will be achieved will be published in a White Paper this autumn.

Although the British target falls short of what many other industrialised
countries in Europe are considering, Thatcher’s message will not be lost
on the White House, where the American administration has been under fire
recently for procrastinating over global warming.

In the past, the US has made a virtue of scientific uncertainty to block
bold initiatives on curbing carbon dioxide emissions. Politically and scientifically
that position looks both isolated and untenable. Last week, Houghton told
journalists that the scientific conclusions on global warming were the fruit
of ‘remarkable scientific consensus: fewer than 10 scientists disagree’.
Bob Watson, one of the NASA scientists involved with the first working group,
commented: ‘The majority of US scientific thinking is behind this report.
I’m confident that the US administration will take it seriously.’

Both Houghton and Bert Bolin, the chairman of the IPCC, welcomed Thatcher’s
espousal of the need to take concerted global action over climate warming:
they also both agreed that the British target would not be enough over the
longer term. ‘It buys time,’ commented Houghton.

Over the next few days, the other two IPCC working groups will meet
in Moscow and Geneva to examine the impact of climate change, and policy
and response strategies. Bolin admitted that the latter group was finding
it heavy going. A third working group has failed to clarify the economic
consequences. ‘It hasn’t addressed that adequately yet,’ he told journalists.
All the working groups are due to report to the full IPCC in Stockholm this
August.

Working group one makes no secret of the uncertainties surrounding its
deliberations, which will take between 10 to 15 years to clarify. ‘The complexity
of the system means that we cannot rule out surprises,’ says the report.

More computing power, more modellers and international agreement on
a network of advanced monitoring equipment to measure any changes in the
way the oceans act as a heat sink are all needed, say the scientists.

The US has been ‘effectively isolated’ by the report of the IPCC’s science
working party and Thatcher’s commitment to the need for action to reduce
carbon dioxide emissions, according to Michael Oppenheimer of the Environmental
Defense Fund in New York City.

‘Bush’s arguments for more research is losing ground,’ says Oppenheimer,
an atmospheric scientist and author of a recently published book on global
warming. He says that, in addition to the US, Japan and Canada are now the
only other industrialised countries resisting plans to reduce carbon dioxide
emissions.

Bush’s science adviser, Allan Bromley, and his adviser on environmental
quality, Michael Deland, both continue to quote scientific studies casting
doubt on the warming trend to justify a lack of commitment to immediate
action. So, too, do the President’s chief of staff, John Sununu, and his
budget director, Richard Darman.

Environmentalists seeking such action, however, have an ally in William
Reilly, the head of the Environmental Protection Agency, as well as many
members of Congress, says Oppenheimer. He points out that scientists from
several federal agencies took part in the IPCC study, and agree with it.

US environmentalists are now hoping that the combination of the IPCC’s
conclusions and their acceptance by Thatcher may be enough to force the
US into action. Several groups are currently planning to mount a major effort
to put global warming near the top of the agenda of this summer’s annual
summit of world leaders.